A Compromise That Could End The Abortion Stalemate

October 12, 1989|By Joan Beck.

Is there a way to get abortion off the nation`s political agenda?

The stale stalemate of an issue has dragged on for decades, its opposing sides wrapped in unyielding and wearisome self-righteousness. Their single-minded zeal distorts the political process, drives candidates to code-word cliches and resolves nothing.

Now it`s getting worse. The Supreme Court will hear three abortion cases this term. State legislators, sensing a possible turnaround in the high court, are under pressure to pass more antiabortion bills. Both pro-choice and pro-life forces are getting up steam for more protests, marches, sit-ins and fund-raising.

Isn`t there any way to settle this tedious, tired issue and be done with it?

Probably not, given the passionate convictions and life-or-death urgenices driving the battling forces.

Still, if abortion could be subjected to the give-and-take compromise process that often resolves political issues, a middle ground does exist that makes considerable scientific and practical sense.

The compromise would involve defining the beginning of life by the same evidence as the end of life-by the presence of brain waves and heart beat-and permitting abortion on demand before that point but not afterward. Both brain waves and heart beat are detectable in an unborn child by about the eighth week of prenatal development, when the growing brain is already directing the budding nervous system and the embryo heart is pumping tiny drops of blood through a rudimentary circulatory system.

Defining the beginning of life by heart beat and brain waves would have medical justification, unlike the trimester criteria the Supreme Court concocted to rationalize Roe v. Wade. It would leave several weeks after pregnancy could be detected for abortion on demand-while the baby was still a tiny clump of cells unable to feel the pain of the procedure.

Such a policy would probably not be acceptable to those who are sure life begins at conception, with the union of the unique packages of life-bearing genes in ovum and sperm. Nor would it please hard-core pro-choice supporters, who believe a woman has absolute right to end a pregnancy whenever and for whatever reasons she chooses.

It is a compromise, an effort to find a reasonable resolution to an interminable conflict. (An exception would have to be made to allow for later abortion for women whose health is endangered by the pregnancy and when severe birth defects are detected.)

But this may be the best outcome that antiabortion forces can now realistically get.

Debate about abortion from now on must take into consideration the existence of RU 486, the pill that used with a prostaglandin effectively ends pregnancy during the first nine weeks of pregnancy. Because it can be taken in private, without the need for an abortion clinic or hospital, it may well put early abortion beyond the reach of legislation or of pro-life protesters.

RU 486 has already been subjected to bitter controversy in France, where it was developed and is now used for one-fourth to one-third of all abortions. So far, the drug has been tightly controlled by its manufacturer, but it is expected to be available through routine wholesale channels within weeks.

Great efforts are already being made by pro-life forces and their political allies to keep RU 486 off the market in the United States. But it will surely be a losing battle. The demand for the drug is already enormous elsewhere in the world, and if its current manufacturer does not supply it, similar drugs will certainly be developed.

It was the French government which ordered the foot-dragging manufacturer of RU 486 to put the drug on the market; a French official was quoted as saying it was ``the moral property of women, not just the property of the drug company.``

Even if RU 486 is not legally approved by the Food and Drug Administration, it will be difficult to stop women here from getting it. AIDS patients have already shown how to obtain unapproved drugs and some rules on importing them for personal use have now been eased. The health hazards of taking RU 486 without medical supervision may eventually push the FDA to allow its legal availability.

The compromise of limiting abortion to the few weeks before brain waves and heart beat can be detected offers partial victory to both sides.

Antiabortion forces probably can`t do much better. Even if a new Supreme Court majority nibbles away at Roe v. Wade, it is not likely to make all abortion illegal; nor could a flat-out ban be enforced. The quick refusal this week of the Florida state legislature to pass several new restrictions on abortion should be sobering to those counting on a flood of new state laws. And prohibiting abortion after eight weeks would end the horrors of second-trimester procedures on which antiabortion campaigns focus.

For pro-choice forces, the compromise would still preserve the option of abortion, while defusing much of the opposition. Cooling the conflict would greatly strengthen the women`s movement, which has been split over abortion, and release enormous amounts of energy, time and money for other neglected issues.